Category Archives: Innocence Commissions/Governmental Case Review Agencies

Innocence Network UK (INUK) and the CCRC

Posted on March 11, 2012 by | 2 Comments

Dr. Michael Naughton, founder and director of the Innocence Network UK (INUK) has been quite vocal in his criticisms of the British Criminal Case Review Commission, the government agency designated to inquire into alleged wrongful convictions and refer cases back to the Court of Appeals. Of the most than 13,000 applications it has received since its creation in 1995, less than 4% have been referred back to the Court of Appeals for further proceedings (far less than the CCRC’s predecessor, which was viewed as inefficient and too restrictive). Naughton’s detailed criticisms of the CCRC process are outlined here and here. Anyone interested in how Innocence Commissions functions would be wise to become familiar with Naughton’s scholarship on the subject (link to his book and a series of articles here).

INUK is sponsoring a major symposium on the need to reform the CCRC on March 30th, details here. Speakers include:

Chris Mullin (Former MP)
Professor Michael Zander QC (Emeritus Professor, LSE and Member of the
Royal Commission on Criminal Justice)
Mark George QC (Garden Court North)
Mark Newby (Solicitor Advocate, Jordans Solicitors)
Dr Michael Naughton (Founder and Director, Innocence Network UK)
Laurie Elks (Ex-Commissioner of the Criminal Cases Review Commission)
David Jessel (Ex-Commissioner of the Criminal Cases Review Commission) Professor Richard Nobles (Queen Mary University, London)
Dr Eamonn O’Neill (Investigative Journalist, University of Strathclyde)
Paddy Joe Hill (One of the Birmingham Six)
Susan May and Eddie Gilfoyle (alleged victims of wrongful conviction)
Bruce Kent (Chair, Progressing Prisoners Maintaining Innocence
Russ Spring (West Midlands Against Injustice)

→ 2 Comments

Posted in Innocence Commissions/Governmental Case Review Agencies, Inquisitional and adversarial systems of justice, United Kingdom

New book on investigating miscarriages of justice in England & Wales

Posted on March 8, 2012 by | 1 Comment

A new collection of essays on the investigation of alleged wrongful convictions in England and Wales has been released and is now available to download here…

→ 1 Comment

Posted in Book recommendations/discussion, Innocence Commissions/Governmental Case Review Agencies, investigations and investigation techniques, United Kingdom

Extensive Piece on Dr. Michael Naughton and the Innocence Network UK

Posted on March 7, 2012 by | 1 Comment

Here is a is very nice piece on the founding and evolution of the Innocence Network UK. The article also discusses Founder and Director Dr. Michael Naughton’s criticisms of the CCRC (Criminal Case Review Commission), a point that Naughton has been quite outspoken about. Very interesting read.

Dr. Michael Naughton of Bristol U.

Naughton’s book on the CCRC available here. A series of articles by Naughton on the CCRC and innocence work in the UK available here.


→ 1 Comment

Posted in Innocence Commissions/Governmental Case Review Agencies, Inquisitional and adversarial systems of justice, United Kingdom

DA-turned bestselling novelist reveals ‘dirty little secret”

Posted on March 5, 2012 by | Leave a comment

William Landay’s brilliant new legal thriller, Defending Jacob, has created quite a buzz. It has been compared favorably with Scott Turow’s Presumed Innocent, which is pretty heady territory.

Like Turow, Landay is a former prosecutor. And like Turow, Landay issues an indictment of our criminal-justice system on several levels. Defending Jacob is not about a wrongful conviction. It is as much a family drama as it is a legal one, and it takes many dramatic turns before what one seasoned reviewer called its “astonishing” ending.

Continue reading →

→ Leave a comment

Posted in Book recommendations/discussion, Defense lawyering, DNA, Eyewitness identification, Innocence Commissions/Governmental Case Review Agencies, Inquisitional and adversarial systems of justice

The galvanizing Troy Davis case taught lessons beyond death penalty

Posted on March 3, 2012 by | 11 Comments

Massive attention in America and internationally on the Troy Davis case appropriately focused on the death penalty, but this case was a call to action regardless of one’s position on capital punishment. The troubling uncertainty that followed Troy Davis to the death chamber on September 21, 2011, should prompt widespread recognition that the U.S. criminal justice system can do better, and Americans must require it.

When Davis’s guilt was called into question following the recantation of most key witnesses, thousands protested but were unable to stop the train that had left the station twenty years earlier. That’s when a jury, after weighing evidence Continue reading →

→ 11 Comments

Posted in Capital punishment, Editorials/Opinion, Events, Eyewitness identification, Innocence Commissions/Governmental Case Review Agencies, North America, Police misconduct, Recantations, Reforming/Improving the system, Snitching

Tagged , , ,

Thoughts on the Oklahoma Innocence Collaboration Act

Posted on March 2, 2012 by | Leave a comment

The newly formed Oklahoma Innocence Project, headed by well-known innocence attorney Tiffany Murphy, is working with legislators to pass the Oklahoma Innocence Collaboration Act. A House subcommittee passed the bill 9-0 last month, and it now is heading to Appropriations and Budgets Committee. The bill appears to set up a mandated structure where the Oklahoma Innocence Project could send cases it felt involved problematic scientific analysis for review to the forensic labs at University of Central Oklahoma. The university department would analyze the case and write a report, and then the case would be sent to the Oklahoma State Bureau of Investigations, which would review the findings and take action if necessary.

I wonder how this system will work in practice. The structure seems to take the case out of the adversarial system. Instead of relying on their own experts to evaluate the case, and then present those findings in court, the case will be reviewed by state officials (at the Oklahoma Innocence Project’s referral), who, as anyone in this field knows, often suffer from tunnel vision or are loathe to admit a mistake. The attacks by prosecutors last week against the North Carolina Innocence Commission are just one recent example of this problem.

But the following quote from the bill’s sponsor caught my attention:

“We’re the only state that doesn’t allow people that are incarcerated when new evidence comes along to use that evidence to prove their innocence.”

Can this actually be true? Oklahoma doesn’t have a “motion for new trial” rule or Continue reading →

→ Leave a comment

Posted in Editorials/Opinion, Forensic controls, Innocence Commissions/Governmental Case Review Agencies, Inquisitional and adversarial systems of justice, Legislation, Project Spotlights

Prosecutors Attack North Carolina’s Innocence Commission, And Demand Changes, After it Exonerates Wrongfully Convicted

Posted on February 28, 2012 by | 2 Comments

On the heels of having exonerated several inmates in North Carolina, prosecutors are challenging the laws establishing and setting the standards for North Carolina’s Innocence Inquiry Commission. Prosecutors want the burden for inmates to obtain relief raised from “clear and convincing” evidence of innocence to proof of innocence “beyond a reasonable doubt.” They also want a chance to cross-examine defense witnesses at an earlier stage in the investigative process, rather than at the 3-judge panel hearing that occurs after initial investigation. A law to make these changes passed the House last year, but died in the Senate. Prosecutors are beating the drum again this year, after the Innocence Inquiry Commission exonerated two men a few months ago.

Christine Mumma, director of the North Carolina Center on Actual Innocence opposes the changes. So does attorney Brad Bannon, who serves on the board of N.C. Legal Prisoner Services. He says, “Simply put, these changes would make it more difficult for innocent, wrongly convicted people to gain their freedom. That turns the entire idea of the Innocence Commission, if not justice itself, upside down.”

Indeed, why anyone would want an inmate to remain in prison-or on death row-when there is clear and convincing evidence of his innocence, is hard to fathom. Changing the law to require proof of innocence “beyond a reasonable doubt” would make exonerations extremely difficult to attain. Proving that someone committed a crime “beyond a reasonable doubt,” which is what prosecutors face at trial, is easier than proving innocence “beyond a reasonable doubt.” We all know that proving a negative (that he didn’t do it) is nearly impossible to do, and is much more difficult than proving a positive (that he did it). Continue reading →

→ 2 Comments

Posted in Editorials/Opinion, Innocence Commissions/Governmental Case Review Agencies, North America, Reforming/Improving the system